Caution: Sorry for the book but I couldn't make it any shorter.




I am primarily a Blacktail deer hunter in the Oregon Coastal mountain. I wanted to scope a new rifle with a top low light performer in a low to medium magnification range with a $1000 budget. I shoot 50-400 yds and twilight is always the most productive time for me. After trying and culling out a few other top brands I wound up with a Leupold VX5HD 2-10x42 and a Swarovski Z3 3-10x42 as finalists. This is what I did and found out to make my choice:


For a scope test platform I used my rifle with the barrel removed. All I had to do to switch scopes was to set one on the low mount ring bottoms and clamp down with my left hand. I put a layer of gorilla tape on the rings to prevent scratching and to stop slipping.

I did all my evaluation tests from early dusk to nearly pitch dark in the same woods where I hunt.


The first twilight test was using 10x on both scopes examining a rocky bluff at 400 yds. I compared the brightness, resolution and color saturation of rocks, mosses, bushes and shadow details. I didnt notice any significant differences between the two, however I battled wash out in the Leupold from the get-go. It was a challenge to find the right weld and eye relief, and when scoping it only lasted 15-20 seconds due to my slight head movements when scanning around. Using the Leupold for scoping required so much concentration fighting the eye box constraints that I wasn’t able to pay great attention to details of what I was scanning and I got eye strain in short order. I also noticed that on shouldering to acquire a target, it took longer than acceptable to generate a clear picture with the Leupold. On lower magnifications at this distance the Leupold was just fine but this was the 10x long range test.

Now with the Swaro, on the same 10x at 400yds, I had practically no washout or eye box alignment probs and I got a clear sight picture pretty much immediately. After being setup and on target I even tried shifting my cheek weld, which would have resulted in washout with the Leupold, but it didn’t happen with the Swaro until I went extreme. Eye strain when scanning was negligible as I didn’t feel like my eye and head position was fighting to stay within the eye box limits. The other thing I noticed when scoping, which is hard to describe, is there was a constant smoothness of the picture I would see rolling from one side to the other in the scope circle. I attribute this to the Swaro enabling my eye to be able to focus close to the edges and on the center simultaneously. I felt that with the Leupold my focus was directed more in the middle half of the circle.

I also compared FOV at 400 yds because the Swaro ocular and objective lens are visibly smaller in diameter than the Leupold. Surprisingly I found the Swaro to actually have slightly wider coverage.

By now my 61 year old eyes were getting tired and the last 20 minutes of available shooting light was approaching. So I switched to a more appropriate 200yd range which was a grassy clearing with big blackberry thickets as a backdrop. In the clearing was a small dark clump of bunchgrass which was to be my new ‘test card’.

I set both scopes on 8x and was not able to discern any notable difference in light gathering ability between them when under near dark conditions. When I was able to get the Leupold in perfect alignment I felt it actually had a slightly brighter image, but that didnt happen often enough to warrant any distinction. Bottom line is they both equally enabled me to see something I could not see with my naked eye in the dim light. I also imagined that there was a buck in the clearing by the blackberries and I shouldered the rifle for a quick last light simulation shot. All I can say is that under those conditions I would have located and shot that imaginary buck with the Swaro way before I could have done the same with the Leupold. Even at 8x I still had to fight wash out with Leupold, which was not as bad as at 10x, but any wash out when it is nearly dark makes your image disappear.

The Leup had a firedot which was new to me and I was curious to try it. All I can say is that when aiming at the center of a 10inch grass clump at 200 yds in near dark, I was able to see and place the x-hairs on the center of that dark mass equally well with both scopes. But when I turned on the smallest setting of the firedot, the light from it washed out the target behind it so I couldnt tell exactly where I was aiming on the clump.


Even though these two scopes have basically the same optical specifications, apples to apples they are not. The Leupold is nearly 1/3 of a pound heavier, bulkier and sits up higher on the receiver giving a lesser cheek weld for a straighter combed stock like I have. The Leupold has a larger objective and ocular lens compared to the Swaro, measured respectively at 47mm vs 43mm for the objective and 37.5 vs 35.5mm for the ocular. I did a light on paper test and the Leupold true objective was 41-42 mm and the Swaro 43-44 mm.

Of course field comparisons are very subjective as everyones eye health and rifle fit is different but I did it for myself so my findings might be different for someone else. My eyes are certainly not that great anymore but luckily I still have barely 20/20 in my shooting eye.

After I wrote the above and edited typos, I thought that maybe I was a bit hard on my homegrown Leupold, of which I have had dozens over the years and still have them. So to double check I went back the next evening to the same spot to duplicate the same tests. Unfortunately the results were pretty much identical.

Out of curiosity I also brought along a new Leupold VX3HD 2.5-8x36 on the second go around. Let me tell you that this little guy held its own! On the 200yd near dark glass clump test it was there right along side the big boys andI had no eye box issues on 8x. They say the VX3HD and VX5HD glass is the same and I believe them. The paper objective test was right at 35-36 mm for the small scope.

I was expecting the results of my field tests to find the Swaro as the slight winner in terms of light gathering ability but that was not the case. But it was the hands down winner for ease of use so thats whats going on my rifle.

Good discussion. Thanks for sharing.

Out of curiosity was the Zeiss V4 3-12x50 part of your culled out group? I like their glass better than either of your finalists.

Good test of optical quality and value. The only thing it lacks is a test of the mechanics - the ability to hold a zero and for the adjustments to work predictably and reliably. The mechanical performance is what I care most about, by far.

Fewshus say....

Stick to Asians scope get big twisty turret......European scope wiff big twisty turret way out most peoples pwice wange.

My scopes all have turret caps I've never had a problem with any scope and its ability to hold zero.....

Nice hunting scope evaluation.

Swarovski scopes are nice.

Nice evaluation, thanks. Also good to hear about that 2.5x8, since I have one downstairs ready to go!

It was a good write up, thank you.

Thanks for sharing your work. You don't have to be Underwriters Laboratories, to me, your impressions are as valuable as any lab/science test, maybe more so in the imperfect conditions encountered in hunting.

Good test and write up. There's a lot more than just brightness when judging a low-light scope. I think you captured all this very well. And you answered a question for me regarding the Leupold illuminated reticle in low light.

Agree, for turret twisters! I'm a cap n shoot guy for coastal hunting and have no concern of any top tier scopes not holding a set zero. I use a flat shooting round and trajectory is a constant so thats relatively simple to compensate for if I know the range and the size of target animal. The wind is my enemy and that one is always the guess!

You may not be concerned with it, but zero shifts happen with real-world use, even in expensive scopes.

That also applies whether one is twisting turrets or setting it and forgetting it.

This^^^

....but most on here think "optical clarity" is THE factor to measure scope quality. They use them as glorified iron sights....

Yup, but that fact escapes many.

No.I ordered a V4 3-12x44 (discontinued). This was a mistake as I was initially attracted by the blowout Christmas price more than thinking of the utility I required. Out of curiosity I mounted it and checked it out off my porch but it was too large and bulky. My bad. No debate the glass was apparently very nice, but being an Asian scope with a German sticker, I forgot to see if it had fixed eye relief over the mag setting range like a German ones. I had a German conquest years back and it was all I ever needed.

How would you suggest that he test for mechanical performance, predictability and reliability after he has it sighted in?

Maybe I should have said little concern! Pretty much every time I am done with a day's hunt I stop when I am out of the hills and take a shot at a little rock on a bank to 'check', dry out my bore and relieve some frustration.

When I was a teen my dad was a Govt hunter/trapper. This was back in the day when the vx 3-9 was the tits. One day we were coming back from work on a ranch and there was a nice young meat buck standing in the brush about 80 yds away. My dad stopped and passed me his rifle off the rack and told me to shoot it in the neck. I shot and missed but I knew I didn't miss. Of course that set me up for eternal ribbing and ridicule! So that night I snuck into his truck and turned the elevation dial on his scope about a foot high. When we were going to work the next day I told my dad that I would bet him 20 bucks that his scope was off and thats why I missed the buck. He took the bet and shot 2 rocks on a bank at 100 yds and took my money. Until the day he died he never believed my story!

Help me understand what you are calling washout in this context.

I know it's hard to check them all, just wondering how the Tract Toric UHD 2-10X42 would fit in with these two.

Thanks for the comparison and for not c-clamping them at the playground.

It's when your eye gets out of alignment with the scope and the sight picture gets a whitish misty blur, or when extreme you lose part or all of the picture.

The only scope I've had fail on me 3 times, twice to hold zero and once to fog internally was a Swarovski Z3 3-9x.

I got one of those but with my long action it didnt fit well. Wx was bad so I couldnt really check it well. Huge ocular. They have a great return policy so try one!

The first two can mostly be checked early on. Pretty simple to note the sight setting, move it in both axis a given amount, note the new impact. Then return to the original zero setting. Worth doing a couple times. As to reliability, hard fair use will be the judge of that. As Tesoro noted above in the story about his dad’s rifle and Leupold 3-9, that was a pretty good test for reliability. It failed.

Hey, that old Leupold lived a million miles jarring around on a rear window gun rack, or in a horse scabbard or trail bike scabbard. That is testimony enough! I dont think anything but a 3lb nighforce scope could have taken his abuse without the occasional hiccup. But it never 'failed' and it always re-zeroed. Maybe thats why I have the habit of shooting alot of 'check shots' as my rifle lives in my truck during hunting seasons.

When I read posts about someone bitching that his top tier scope failed multiple times it makes me wonder more about mounting errors or operator errors than quality control. And especially nowadays where many have this long range bug and adjust the vertical reticle adjustment too high on 1in tubes.

Sounds like it lost zero (or the bedding or mounting system did) multiple times, which would be a failure, in my book.

Then I assume that you must hunt with irons or a mil-spec scope if reliability is your top criteria! There is no lightweight sport hunting scope made that is 100% reliable. Everything is a trade off.

Agreed. I'm willing to carry an extra few ounces to get reliability. It helps me sleep at night.

Thousands of pages in the optics forum will attest to this.

The holy grail of light and 100% reliable

Guy that I don't know at my gun club was telling me yesterday that he has had two scopes go bad.....he was shooting an AR Style.22 rifle at 50 yards with a Bushnell scope.

I asked how did they go bad ?

He said his rifle would shoot a nice group then just throw one....1" to 1.5" out.

I replied that could be a lot of things besides the scope doesn't sound like your scope was bad to me.

...his reply was Bushnell said it was defective and sent him a $400 voucher.

My reply was....I doubt that Bushnell can even repair a scope or possibly even diagnose a problem with a scope being they're imported from Asia.

I still think he was convinced that if his gun consistantly threw a shot out of the group he had scope issues.

I'll go out in a limb and predict there are other people that think that too.

Maybe I'm wrong.

That’s no Joke. The NF 2.5x10 or SS 3x9 is about where they start in my book.

Hah! I would bet that the odds of failure on a hunt are exponentially higher due to adrenaline, flinch, wind ,mis-judging range or just plain bad shooting form. Thats why its nice to hunt with a scope so you have something to blame.

Fair enough! Haha. It’s nice to have enough confidence in your scope that you don’t have to constantly be taking “check shots” to make sure the rifle is still zeroed. It removes one thing from the list of possible/probable reasons for hunt failure.

Yes indeed, the confidence to know it holds zero is worth a bunch to me, better than a truck load of sighters.

Agree with beretzs, my two most important rifles wear NF 2.5-10x32s. Next on the reliability scale for me are M8 Leupold 4x28s. I’ve had lots of them since my first one in 1974, have yet to see a zero creep with one.

I do like those M8 4x’s. For some reason I can’t bust them. And they just stay put where I’ve left them.

Yep, I’ve tried too!

of course there is the part of if you can't see it you can't shoot it... both apply

Thats every last illuminated scope in the books for me. When your eye has to gather and then you turn on a light, you loose your low light vision. Pupils constrict etc....

Lighted ones are ok during the day. Dont' really see the need mostly, but at night or low light I've had guys reach for my gun with Zeiss and no light, well it has a light but I've never put a new battery in that one

I’m also a low light Blacktail hunter... What you describe dovetails neatly with what I saw comparing older-gen Leup and Swaro scopes about a decade ago. I have a 3-10x42 Swaro A3.

Just a couple thoughts...

Ten years ago, a 3-9x40 Conquest was better than either of them in a few ways. Optically, the Swaro and Conquest were about equally capable in low light, but the Conquest’s reticle was much better against a dark or messy background than the Swaro’s. Both have duplexes. Mechanically, both track reasonably well, for what they are. I tested that pretty thoroughly. Even killed a buck on Steens at 520 yards dialing that Swaro. BUT, I did discover that the reticle‘s vertical stadia doesn’t track with the adjustments... meaning, if you set everything up very carefully with levels and plumb lines and so on, and shoot a ladder test, the POI drifts off to the left of the centerline of the target as you dial it upwards. Subtle but real, and once seen, cannot be unseen, if you know what I mean. So that was a bummer. So, I put that scope somewhere where it’s low light performance and light weight are very appreciated but where it won’t be dialed: my .358 Model 7, which is my main blacktail rifle. Works great on there.

My other comment is, if you can stomach the weight, try a Zeiss V4 4-16x50 illuminated sometime. $799 from RHR with the #93 illuminated reticle. Contrary to the above, on the lowest setting the lit reticle does NOT cause eye problems. In fact I mostly used it on the second-lowest setting at dusk, much less the lowest. I used it on a stand this year where I watched until past legal light every time and was able to test that on various backgrounds, including some does. Works fantastic. That scope is a significant step up from the above older Conquest- which is really good- or the Swaro. But yeah, it’s big.

They all smoke any Leupold I’ve ever used but I gave up on them a dozen years ago and have not looked back so I can’t speak to that.

Yes I know what you mean about the older Conquests as I had one in 2005 or so. I believe it had German glass and parts but was assembled in US, like the newer Z3. I think they both did this to save on import tariffs.The Conquest had a very nice duplex reticle. The new Z4's are made somewhere in Asia and I havent run one through a field test, and wont, but initial impressions looked good.

That larger big conquest is too bulky/heavy for my liking and I cant get a good cheek weld with the added height on my rifle. I had lighted center x hairs on a swaro x5i 3-18. Fantastic scope in every way and not sure why they are not more popular. My prob with lighted x-hairs is it makes me focus on them but when I shoot I focus on the target. Maybe I didnt practice enough to get used to them.

From what I understand, Swaro changed some internals over the years from the A's to Z3 models. I have not tried to dial my two 3-10's which are both late model versions but have read of guys doing so with issues. I dont dial for my deer rifle but I'm putting the other one on a sweet little Sako Vixen 223 and vertical dialing could come in handy for rock chucks etc but probably wont work well.


I have no issues with the modern Leupolds other than the more common than not stiff mag ring adjustment. I ordered a vx5hd 2-10 from them before xmas and the ring was so hard to turn that I sent it right back for a refund. Then I ordered another from OP for testing and the ring was passable but not great. I also got a vx5hd 2.5-8 Leup to check out and it came with a large screw in pin for the mag ring. Like wtf does this dainty little scope need to have a crank handle on it ! Every German scope I have owned had ultra smooth mag adjustments right out of the box and stayed that way. The bonus with the Germans is eye relief has always been constant for all mags so you dont have to change your form on higher power. I would guess that by now some 'Asian' manufacturers have 'duplicated' their engineering!

Swaro should stick to binos and spotters...

Leupold should stick to hats and overpriced sunglasses.

Agree with all that. Interestingly, the 4-16x50mm v4 Conquest fits on both my Kimber WSM and Remington M700 in Talley low’s, just a data point. But I hear you- they are big. The first V4 I bought (other than two 1-4x24’s for AR’s) was a 4-16x44 with a duplex and I’m considering trying it on my 7-08 mountain rifle, but it would look goofy on there due mainly to its length. Shouldn’t matter; it’s not a fashion show out there, haha... but it does.

That's simply not true when it comes to the better illuminated models. The illumination in a Docter 8x56 is so dim -- and the dot so fine -- that you can't even see it thirty minutes after sunset until you get to the 4th or 5th setting -- and then it's just the faintest of glows. The illumination in my current Steiner Ranger 4 2.5-10x50 is much the same.

Those will not affect your vision in a negative way.

Bobby, how does that Steiner Ranger compare to the Nighthunter Xtreme (which is a FANTASTIC low light scope)?

Not having any experience with illuminated reticles in low light--what does it look like? In very low light, your vision is no longer in color (something about rods and cones, but you get the idea). So add in a very faint red and what does it look like? Does it appear as a gray dot? Red against an otherwise grayscale image? Just wondering. Thanks.

[quote=skeen

Bobby, how does that Steiner Ranger compare to the Nighthunter Xtreme (which is a FANTASTIC low light scope)?
[/quote]

It's apples and oranges to a degree as the NightHunter Xtreme went for $2500 compared to 1K for the Ranger 4. With that being said, the improvements made to the original Ranger series are notable and significantly bridge the gap between those two. The Ranger 4 is not going to have the same apparent image brightness as the NH Xtreme but does feature exceptional resolving power. It has a larger sweet spot than the Xtreme and also is sharper to the edges, though that doesn't carry much weight in real-life hunting situations. The illumination in the Ranger 4 is redesigned and simply superb, and while the illumination in the NH scopes was good, this one is even better.

There's much to like about the Ranger 4. While I do like the NightHunter Xtreme, it -- to me,at least -- is certainly not $1500 better than the Ranger 4. That's definitely not a knock on the NightHunter series. It's just a compliment to the Ranger 4 scopes. I've only had mine a short while, but it is quickly winning me over.

BillyE-

The dot appears in color, and that actual color can vary depending upon the scope itself. As such -- with the rest of the scene in muted tones -- target acquisition is very quick.

This thread been a interesting read. I've used nothing but Leupolds since the early 70's and never had an issue with any. I've had the VX compact, VX111, VX3i, and a VX2.

I have to wear 2.50 glasses just for up close and reading and over last few years as my eyesight has changed have found that I run out of focus on the eyepiece adjustment. I'm seeing a slight double crosshair. This hasn't really affected my hunting ability on deer and elk but it is really annoying especially when sighting in or testing reloads.

So I started looking at other brands and liked the Swarovski best. So I'm replacing all my Leups with Swarovski Z3 3-9 or 3.5-10 and they focus a whole lot better plus looking through them compared to my Leup VX3i 3.5-10 and 4.5-14 they have a brighter clearer image. So the kids are getting several used leups to choose from for their rifles.

Not saying this to be a Leup basher at all as I consider what I've got from them has been excellent. I still have a Leup VX2 3-9x33 adj objective on my Ruger 77/22 and so far I still have focus adjustment on it.

It should be noted the OP experience is the oppisite of mine and every other guy I know who has used the Fire Dot illum.

The lowest setting is typically so low it can only be seen in pitch black and a new battery.

The second setting can not be seen in normal daylight and produces a subdued burnt orange reticle in very low light.

It is most likely that I had the setting on the lowest usable level because the lower one would not be used as you cant shoot in pitch black. I set the light to the lowest setting visible after sundown with was orangy. The fact is that at a minute or two before my target was obscured by lack of light, I was able to see my cross hairs superposed over the target with the vx5, as easily as the others, so I didn't need a light assist. And when I tried the light it washed out my target. But I have to say my test was done at the extreme end of last light which most probably dont try out. But the firedot featire was not the reason I nixed the vx5. And I can see a higher setting of the firedot being handy under certain applications.

What reticle was in the VX5?

I should say I only have experience with the TMOA reticle/Firedot. The entire MOA scale lights up and I bet it is easier in low light than just a dot at the center.

The TMOA is a pretty fine reticle so the illum does not cover much of the target.

[/quote]

What reticle was in the VX5?

I should say I only have experience with the TMOA reticle/Firedot. The entire MOA scale lights up and I bet it is easier in low light than just a dot at the center.

The TMOA is a pretty fine reticle so the illum does not cover much of the target.
[/quote]


I had the std duplex. A few yrs back I had a Swaro x5 illuminated, which had very precise and adjustable lighted cross hairs. I found these easier to aim with than a dot but once again I didnt need them under real low light to help my shooting.

I have 45 years of shooting experience using std cross hairs so maybe there is some 'eye muscle memory' involved in my case. I dont focus on the cross hairs when I shoot but rather the target. Having cross hairs lighted up, or with a dot, distracts me because there is now a dominant item in my focal planes.